Social Value Orientation and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: The Effects of Regulatory Focus and Descriptive Norms

Abstract

Social dilemmas (SDs) refer to situations where self and collective interests conflict. This study aims to contribute to an important question in the SD literature: “what are the factors that lead individuals to protect the collective interests (to cooperate) in SDs?”. Based on the regulatory focus theory, the focus theory of normative conduct, and the literature on social value orientation (SVO), it was hypothesized that SVO would interact with regulatory focus and descriptive norms to influence cooperation in a SD. Using a prisoner’s dilemma game (PDG), hypotheses were tested on 289 participants from a public university. SVO was measured three weeks prior to the PDG, while regulatory focus (promotion vs. prevention) and descriptive norms (control vs. self-interest vs. cooperation) were manipulated during the experiment. Compared with promotion focus, prevention focus activation was observed to lead to lower cooperation among prosocial men. Moreover, prosocials had higher cooperation when descriptive norms signaled cooperative behavior rather than selfish behavior. SVO x regulatory focus x descriptive norms interaction was insignificant. These findings suggest that individuals with prosocial, but not with proself motivation, are influenced by these situational factors. Thus, policymakers should consider these factors to ensure the high cooperation of prosocial individuals. Integrating regulatory focus theory, focus theory of normative conduct, and the literature on SVO, this study makes a unique contribution to the literature as it attempts to enhance the understanding of the preferences of individuals in SDs. Furthermore, this study provides a practical contribution by testing a theoretical model that can at least partially explain the low cooperative behavior in SD situations in Turkey

Keywords

• Social value orientation
• cooperation
• regulatory focus
• descriptive norms

Sosyal Değer Yönelimi ve Sosyal İkilemlerde İş Birliği: Düzenleyici Odağın ve Tanımlayıcı Normların Etkisi

Abstract

Sosyal ikilemler bireysel çıkar ile topluluk çıkarının çeliştiği durumlar olarak ifade edilir. Bu çalışma, sosyal ikilemler yazınındaki önemli sorulardan biri olan, sosyal ikilem durumlarında bireyleri topluluk çıkarını kollamaya (iş birliğine) yönelten faktörler nelerdir sorusuna katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu amaçla, düzenleyici odak ve normatif davranışın odağı teorileri ve sosyal değer yönelimleri alan yazınından yola çıkılarak bireylerin sosyal değer yönelimlerinin, düzenleyici odak ve tanımlayıcı normlar ile etkileşimli olarak iş birliği davranışını etkileyeceği öngörülmüştür. Çalışmanın hipotezleri bir devlet üniversitesinden 289 öğrenci üzerinde bir mahkumun ikilemi deneyi ile test edilmiştir. Sosyal değer yönelimleri deneyden üç hafta önce ölçülmüş, düzenleyici odak (önleme ve yükselme) ve tanımlayıcı normlar (kontrol, bencil davranış normu ve iş birliği normu) manipüle edilmiştir. Bulgular, beklenen sosyal değer yönelimi ve düzenleyici odak etkileşiminin yalnızca erkekler için anlamlı olduğunu göstermiştir. Buna göre, yükselme odağına kıyasla önleme odağı aktifleştirilmiş toplum yanlısı erkekler daha düşük iş birliği davranışı göstermektedir. Ayrıca, tanımlayıcı normun bencil davranışa kıyasla iş birliğini işaret ettiği durumda toplum yanlısı bireylerin iş birliği davranışı artmıştır. Üç yönlü sosyal değer yönelimi, düzenleyici odak ve tanımlayıcı norm etkileşimi ise anlamlı bulunmamıştır. Bulgular, toplum yanlısı bireylerin iş birliği davranışının incelenen durumsal faktörlerden etkilendiğini, kendine yanlıların iş birliği davranışının ise değişmediğini göstermektedir. Buna göre, topluluk çıkarını düşünen bireylerin yüksek iş birliğinin sağlanması için bu durumsal faktörler göz önüne alınmalıdır. Bu çalışma, düzenleyici odak ve normatif davranışın odağı teorileri ile sosyal değer yönelimleri yazınını bütünleştirerek bireylerin sosyal ikilem durumlarındaki tercihlerini anlamaya çalışması bakımından alan yazına özgün katkıda bulunmaktadır. Ayrıca, bu çalışma Türkiye’de sosyal ikilem durumlarında düşük iş birliği davranışı gösterilmesini en azından kısmen açıklayabilecek teorik bir model sınayarak pratik katkı da sağlamaktadır.

Keywords

• Sosyal değer yönelimi
• iş birliği
• düzenleyici odak
• tanımlayıcı normlar

References

1. Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G. ve Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, White women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586-592. google scholar
2. Au, W. T. ve Kwong, J. Y. Y. (2004). Measurements and effects of social-value orientation in social dilemmas: A review. R. Suleiman, D. V. Budescu, I. Fischer ve D. M. Messick (Ed.), Contemporary psychological research on social dilemmas içinde (s. 71-98). USA: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
3. Aydın, M. Ş. (2021). 13-70 aylık çocuklarda prososyal davranışlar: Doğal gözlem çalışması. Psikoloji Çalışmaları -Studies in Psychology. Advance Online Publication google scholar
4. Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. ve Nijstad, B. A. (2011). When prevention promotes creativity: The role of mood, regulatory focus, and regulatory closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(5), 794-809. google scholar
5. Balliet, D., Parks, C. ve Joireman, J. (2009). Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A Meta-analysis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(4), 533-547. google scholar
6. Balliet, D. ve Van Lange, P. A. (2013). Trust, punishment, and cooperation across 18 societies: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(4), 363-379. google scholar
7. Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum google scholar
8. Bless, H., Clore, G. L., Schwarz, N., Golisano, V., Rabe, C. ve Wölk, M. (1996). Mood and the use of scripts: Does a happy mood really lead to mindlessness?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(4), 665-679. google scholar

9. Bogaert, S., Boone, C. ve Declerck, C. (2008). Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A review and conceptual model. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(3), 453-480. google scholar
10. Bogaert, S., Boone, C. ve van Witteloostuijn, A. (2012). Social value orientation and climate strength as moderators of the impact of work group cooperative climate on affective commitment. Journal of Management Studies, 49(5), 918-944. google scholar
11. Boone, C., Declerck, C. ve Kiyonari, T. (2010). Inducing cooperative behavior among proselfs versus prosocials: The moderating role of incentives and trust. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 54(5), 799824. google scholar
12. Brizi, A., Giacomantonio, M., Schumpe, B. M. ve Mannetti, L. (2015). Intention to pay taxes or to avoid them: The impact of social value orientation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 50, 22-31. google scholar
13. Caldwell, M. D. (1976). Communication and sex effects in a five-person prisoner’s dilemma game. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 33, 273-80. google scholar
14. Camerer, C. F. (2011). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. USA: Princeton University Press. google scholar
15. Chen, X. P. ve Bachrach, D. G. (2003). Tolerance of free-riding: the effects of defection size, defection pattern, and social orientation in a repeated public goods dilemma. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(1), 139-147. google scholar
16. Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4), 105-109. google scholar
17. Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A. ve Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology içinde (s. 201-234). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. google scholar
18. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R. ve Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015-1026. google scholar
19. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G. ve Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple correlation/regression analysis for the behavioral sciences. England: Taylor & Francis. google scholar
20. Cooper, R., DeJong, D. V., Forsythe, R., & Ross, T. W. (1996). Cooperation without reputation: experimental evidence from prisoner’s dilemma games. Games and Economic Behavior, 12(2), 187-218. google scholar
21. Crowe, E. ve Higgins, E.T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 117-132. google scholar
22. Çalık, T., Özbay, Y., Özer, A., Kurt, T. ve Kandemir, M. (2009). İlköğretim okulu öğrencilerinin zorbalık statülerinin okul iklimi, prososyal davranışlar, temel ihtiyaçlar ve cinsiyet değişkenlerine göre incelenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 60(60), 555-576. google scholar
23. Das, E., Kerkhof, P. ve Kuiper, J. (2008). Improving the effectiveness of fundraising messages: The impact of charity goal attainment, message framing, and evidence on persuasion. Journal ofApplied Communication Research, 36(2), 161-175. google scholar
24. Davis, J. J. (1995). The effects of message framing on response to environmental communications. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(2), 285-299. google scholar
25. Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review ofPsychology, 31(1), 169-193. google scholar
26. De Cremer, D. ve Van Lange, P. A. M. (2001). Why prosocials exhibit greater cooperation than proselfs: The roles of social responsibility and reciprocity. European Journal ofPersonality, 15(1), 5-18. google scholar
27. Dovidio, J. F. (1984). Helping behavior and altruism: An empirical and conceptual overview. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 361-427. google scholar
28. Eisenberg, N. (1991). Meta-analytic contributions to the literature on prosocial behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(3), 273-282. google scholar
29. Eisenberg, N. ve Fabes, R. A. (1991). Prosocial behavior and empathy: A multimethod developmental perspective. M. S. Clark (Ed.), Prosocial behavior içinde (s. 34-61). Sage Publications, Inc. google scholar
30. Eisenberg, N. ve Fabes, R. A. (1998). Prosocial development. W. Damon ve N. Eisenberg (Ed.), google scholar
31. Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development içinde (s. 701778). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. google scholar
32. Elliott, C. S. ve Hayward, D. M. (1998). The expanding definition of framing and its particular impact on economic experimentation. The Journal ofSocio-Economics, 27(2), 229-243. google scholar
33. Fairbairn, C. E. ve Sayette, M. A. (2013). The effect of alcohol on emotional inertia: A test of alcohol myopia. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 122(3), 770-781. google scholar
34. Fehr, E. ve Gachter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415(6868), 137-140. google scholar
35. Förster, J., Higgins, E. T. ve Bianco, A. T. (2003). Speed/accuracy decisions in task performance: Built-in trade-off or separate strategic concerns?. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(1), 148-164. google scholar
36. Friedman, R. S. ve Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1001-1013. google scholar
37. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Rust, M. C., Nier, J. A., Banker, B. S., Ward, C. M., ... ve Houlette, M. (1999). Reducing intergroup bias: Elements of intergroup cooperation. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 388. google scholar
38. Gachter, S. ve Fehr, E. (1999). Collective action as a social exchange. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 39(4), 341-369. google scholar
39. Gino, F. ve Margolis, J. D. (2011). Bringing ethics into focus: How regulatory focus and risk preferences influence (un)ethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 145-156. google scholar
40. Godinho, C. A., Updegraff, J. A., Alvarez, M. J. ve Lima, M. L. (2017). When is congruency helpful? Interactive effects of frame, motivational orientation, and perceived message quality on fruit and vegetable consumption. Journal of health communication, 22(12), 942-950. google scholar
41. Hayward, R. D. ve Kemmelmeier, M. (2007). How competition is viewed across cultures: A test of four theories. Cross-Cultural Research, 41(4), 364-395. google scholar
42. Herrmann, B., Thöni, C. ve Gachter, S. (2008). Antisocial punishment across societies. Science, 319(5868), 1362-1367. google scholar
43. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280-1300. google scholar
44. Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology içinde (s. 1-46). New York: Academic Press. google scholar
45. Higgins, E. T. (2012). Regulatory focus theory. Handbook of theories of social psychology. London: Sage London google scholar
46. Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N. ve Taylor, A. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal ofSocial Psychology, 31(1), 3-23. google scholar
47. Higgins, E. T. ve Spiegel, S. (2004). Promotion and prevention strategies for self-regulation: A motivated cognition perspective. R. F. Baumeister ve K. D. Vohs (Ed), Handbook ofself-regulation: Research, theory, and applications içinde (s. 171-187). New York, NY: Guilford Press. google scholar
48. Idson, L. C., Liberman, N. ve Higgins, E. T. (2000). Distinguishing gains from nonlosses and losses from nongains: A regulatory focus perspective on hedonic intensity. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 36(3), 252-274. google scholar
49. Israel, S., Lerer, E., Shalev, I., Uzefovsky, F., Riebold, M., Laiba, E., ... ve Ebstein, R. P. (2009). The oxytocin receptor (OXTR) contributes to prosocial fund allocations in the dictator game and the social value orientations task. PloS One, 4(5), 1-10. google scholar
50. Kallgren, C. A., Reno, R. R. ve Cialdini, R. B. (2000). A focus theory of normative conduct: When norms do and do not affect behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(8), 1002-1012. google scholar
51. Karagonlar, G. ve Kuhlman, D. M. (2013). The role of social value orientation in response to an unfair offer in the ultimatum game. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(2), 228-239. google scholar
52. Karagonlar, G. ve Neves, P. (2020). No more Mr. Nice Guy: Social value orientation and abusive supervision. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 35(2), 85-99. google scholar
53. Keller, J. ve Pfattheicher, S. (2011). Vigilant self-regulation, cues of being watched and cooperativeness. European Journal of Personality, 25(5), 363-372. google scholar
54. Kelley, H. H. ve Stahelski, A. J. (1970). Social interaction basis of cooperators’ and competitors’ beliefs about others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(1), 66-91. google scholar
55. Kelley, H. H. ve Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley-Interscience. google scholar
56. Kiyonari, T., Yamagishi, T., Cook, K. S. ve Cheshire, C. (2006). Does trust beget trustworthiness? Trust and trustworthiness in two games and two cultures: A research note. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(3), 270-283. google scholar
57. Kollock, P. (1998). Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 183-214. google scholar
58. Köbis, N. C., Van Prooijen, J. W., Righetti, F. ve Van Lange, P. A. (2015). “Who doesn’t?”—The impact of descriptive norms on corruption. PloS ONE, 10(6), e0131830. google scholar
59. Kuhlman, D. M., Camac, C. R. ve Cunha, D. A. (1986). Individual differences in social orientation. H. Wilke, D. Messick ve C. Rutte (Ed.), Experimental social dilemmas içinde (s. 151-176). New York: Verlag Peter Lang. google scholar
60. Kuhlman, D. M. ve Marshello, A. F. (1975). Individual differences in game motivation as moderators of preprogrammed strategy effects in prisoner’s dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(5), 922-931. google scholar
61. Kuhlman, D. M. ve Wimberley, D. L. (1976). Expectations of choice behavior held by cooperators, competitors, and individualists across four classes of experimental games. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(1), 69-81. google scholar
62. Latane, B. ve Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. google scholar
63. Liebrand, W. B. (1984). The Effect of social motives, communication and group size on behaviour in an n-person multi-stage mixed-motive game. European Journal of Social Psychology, 14(3), 239-264. google scholar
64. Liebrand, W. B. ve McClintock, C. G. (1988). The ring measure of social values: A computerized procedure for assessing individual differences in information processing and social value orientation. European Journal of Personality, 2(3), 217-230. google scholar
65. Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F. ve Schaller, M. (2007). Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the “porcupine problem.”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 42-55. google scholar
66. Maner, J. K., Luce, C. L., Neuberg, S. L., Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. ve Sagarin, B. J. (2002). The effects of perspective taking on motivations for helping: Still no evidence for altruism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(11), 1601-1610. google scholar
67. Martinsson, P., Villegas-Palacio, C. ve Wollbrant, C. (2015). Cooperation and social classes: Evidence from Colombia. Social Choice and Welfare, 45(4), 829-848. google scholar
68. Mayer, J. D. ve Gaschke, Y. N. (1988). The experience and meta-experience of mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(1), 102-111. google scholar
69. McClintock, C. G. ve Liebrand, W. B. (1988). Role of interdependence structure, individual value orientation, and another’s strategy in social decision making: A transformational analysis. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 55(3), 396-409. google scholar
70. Messick, D. M. ve McClintock, C. G. (1968). Motivational bases of choice in experimental games. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 4(1), 1-25. google scholar
71. Murphy, R. O., Ackermann, K. A. ve Handgraaf, M. (2011). Measuring social value orientation. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(8), 771-781. google scholar
72. Nowak, M. A. ve Sigmund, K. (2005). Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature, 437(7063), 1291-1298. google scholar
73. Omoto, A. M. ve Snyder, M. (1995). Sustained helping without obligation: Motivation, longevity of service, and perceived attitude change among AIDS volunteers. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 68(4), 671. google scholar
74. Omoto, A. M. ve Snyder, M. (2002). Considerations of community: The context and process of volunteerism. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(5), 846-867. google scholar
75. Ortmann, A. ve Tichy, L. K. (1999). Gender differences in the laboratory: Evidence from prisoner’s dilemma games. Journal ofEconomic Behavior & Organization, 39(3), 327-339. google scholar
76. Parks, C. D., Joireman, J. ve Van Lange, P. A. (2013). Cooperation, trust, and antagonism: How public goods are promoted. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(3), 119-165. google scholar
77. Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A. ve Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review ofPsychology, 56, 365-392. google scholar
78. Pfattheicher, S. ve Keller, J. (2013). Vigilant self-regulation and costly punishment in public goods situations. European Journal ofPersonality, 27(4), 346-354. google scholar
79. Pham, M. T. ve Avnet, T. (2009). Contingent reliance on the affect heuristic as a function of regulatory focus. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 267-278. google scholar
80. Piff, P. K., Kraus, M. W., Cöte, S., Cheng, B. H. ve Keltner, D. (2010). Having less, giving more: The influence of social class on prosocial behavior. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 99(5), 771-784. google scholar
81. Piliavin, J. A. ve Charng, H. W. (1990). Altruism: A review of recent theory and research. Annual Review ofSociology, 16(1), 27-65. google scholar
82. Piliavin, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L. ve Clark, R. D. III. (1981). Emergency intervention. New York: Academic Press. google scholar
83. Pletzer, J. L., Balliet, D., Joireman, J., Kuhlman, D. M., Voelpel, S. C. ve Van Lange, P. A. (2018). Social value orientation, expectations, and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analysis. European Journal ofPersonality, 32(1), 62-83. google scholar
84. Pruitt, D. G. ve Kimmel, M. J. (1977). Twenty years of experimental gaming: Critique, synthesis, and suggestions for the future. Annual Review ofPsychology, 28(1), 363-392. google scholar
85. Rothman, A. J. ve Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 3-19. google scholar
86. Schwartz, S. H. ve Howard, J. A. (1982). Helping and cooperation: A self-based motivational model. V. J. Derlega, J. Grzelak (Ed.), Cooperation and helping behavior içinde (s. 327-353). New York: Academic press. google scholar
87. Seguino, S., Stevens, T. ve Lutz, M. (1996). Gender and cooperative behavior: Economic man rides alone. Feminist Economics, 2(1), 1-21. google scholar
88. Sell, J. (1997). Gender, strategies, and contributions to public goods. Social Psychology Quarterly 60, 252-65. google scholar
89. Simpson, B. (2003). Sex, fear, and greed: A social dilemma analysis of gender and cooperation. Social Forces, 82(1), 35-52. google scholar
90. Staub, E. 2002. Emergency helping, genocidal violence, and the evolution of responsibility and altruism in children. R.J. Davidson ve A. Harrington (Ed)., Visions of compassion: Western scientists and Tibetan buddhists examine human nature içinde (s. 165-81). London: Oxford Univ. Press google scholar
91. Staunton, M., Louis, W. R., Smith, J. R., Terry, D. J. ve McDonald, R. I. (2014). How negative descriptive norms for healthy eating undermine the effects of positive injunctive norms. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(4), 319-330. google scholar
92. Stockard, J., Van De Kragt, A. J. ve Dodge, P. J. (1988). Gender roles and behavior in social dilemmas: Are there sex differences in cooperation and in its justification?. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51(2), 154-163. google scholar
93. Tice, D. M., Bratslavsky, E. ve Baumeister, R. F. (2001). Emotional distress regulation takes precedence over impulse control: If you feel bad, do it!. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 53-67. google scholar Tversky, A. ve Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458. google scholar
94. Tversky, A. ve Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. The Journal of Business, 59(1), 251-278. google scholar
95. Uskul, A. K., Sherman, D. K. ve Fitzgibbon, J. (2009). The cultural congruency effect: Culture, regulatory focus, and the effectiveness of gain-vs. loss-framed health messages. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 535-541. google scholar
96. Van Andel, C. E., Tybur, J. M. ve Van Lange, P. A. (2016). Donor registration, college major, and prosociality: Differences among students of economics, medicine and psychology. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 277-283. google scholar
97. Van Baaren, R. B., Holland, R. W., Kawakami, K. ve Van Knippenberg, A. (2004). Mimicry and prosocial behavior. Psychological science, 15(1), 71-74. google scholar
98. Van Lange, P. A. M. (1999). The Pursuit of joint outcomes and equality in outcomes: An integrative model of social value orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(2), 337-349. google scholar
99. Van Lange, P. A. M., Bekkers, R., Schuyt, T. N. M. ve Van Vugt, M. V. (2007). From games to giving: Social value orientation predicts donations to noble causes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(4), 375-384. google scholar
100. Van Lange, P. A. M., De Bruin, E., Otten, W. ve Joireman, J. A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 733-746. google scholar
101. Van Lange, P. A. M., Joireman, J., Parks, C. D. ve Van Dijk, E. (2013). The psychology of social dilemmas: A review. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(2), 125-141. google scholar
102. Van Lange, P. A. M. ve Kuhlman, D. M. (1994). Social value orientations and impressions of partner’s honesty and intelligence: A test of the might versus morality effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(1), 126-141. google scholar
103. Van Lange, P. A. M. ve Rusbult, C. E. (2012). Interdependence theory. P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski ve E. T. Higgins (Ed.), Handbook of theories of social psychology içinde (s. 251-272). London: Sage London. google scholar
104. Vugt, M. V., Cremer, D. D. ve Janssen, D. P. (2007). Gender differences in cooperation and competition: The male-warrior hypothesis. Psychological science, 18(1), 19-23. google scholar
105. Van Vugt, V. M., Meertens, R. M. ve Van Lange, P. A. M. (1995). Car versus public transportation? The role of social value orientations in a real-life social dilemma. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(3), 258-278. google scholar
106. Wan, E. W., Hong, J. ve Sternthal, B. (2009). The effect of regulatory orientation and decision strategy on brand judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 1026-1038. google scholar
107. Yaban, H. (2017). Ergenler ve beliren yetişkinlerde sosyal değer yöneliminin gelişimsel, sosyal-bilişsel ve bağlamsal bir model çerçevesinde incelenmesi (Doktora Tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara, Türkiye. google scholar
108. Yamagishi, T., Mifune, N., Li, Y., Shinada, M., Hashimoto, H., Horita, Y., ... ve Takagishi, H. (2013). Is behavioral pro-sociality game-specific? Pro-social preference and expectations of pro-sociality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(2), 260-271. google scholar
109. Yener, S. (2017). Psikolojik rahatlık algısının işgören sesliliği ve takım işbirliği arasındaki ilişkide aracı değişken rolü. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 19(2), 187-204. google scholar
110. Yeşiltaş, M., Kanten, P. ve Sormaz, Ü. (2013). Otantik liderlik tarzının prososyal hizmet davranışları üzerindeki etkisi: Konaklama işletmelerine yönelik bir uygulama. Istanbul University Journal of the School of Business Administration, 42(2), 333-350. google scholar